6 The Lope, Haydenville, MA 01039.
Phone: (413) 268-7272 Fax: (413) 268-7279
back to Children's House | back to Children's House ECCD page
1. Early Childhood Care and Development programmes are affordable.
2. The costs of ECCD should always be considered in relation to effects.
3. A variety of strategies exist for keeping costs low in relation to effects.
4. In general, ECCD is under-funded.
The range of costs among possible programme options varies a great deal, depending on how ambitious goals are, on the size of the programme envisioned, on the number of components or services integrated into the programme, on the model chosen, the intensity of the programme and the kind of staffing elected. There are many models and dimensions to choose from.
An ECCD programme can be constructed in parts or phases. Unlike building a dam, which involves a huge lump of investment all in one piece at the outset, an ECCD programme can be constructed over time, adding pieces to improve quality and extending the programme gradually to new populations.
It is possible to share costs. It is normal for the costs of an ECCD programme to be shared by the government, participating families and local communities, and often by organized sectors of the civil society, the private sector and international organizations as well. Therefore, governments can look for ways to avoid large start-up costs and to spread out the recurrent costs of a programme.
Spending on ECCD can reduce other costs. If an ECCD programme can be shown to reduce costs in another programme (as, for example when repetition in primary school is reduced or when early attention reduces health costs later on), then overall expenditures will not increase.
An example of an affordable programme comes from Kenya where (in 1991) less than one-tenth of one percent of the education budget was spent for a community-based preschool programme reaching 900,000 children. This was possible because of the way the programme was designed--para-professionals staff the programme, children are in the programme for a limited time each day, the programme has been phased over time, and communities accept a major responsibility for sharing costs. At the same time the programme has sacrificed quality through what might be termed an under-investment by the central government in ECCD (see below).
1. Returns to an investment in ECCD can be high. Even though the cost of an ECCD programme may seem to be relatively high, if it produces large effects and benefits to society as well as to the individuals involved, it will be worthwhile in both human and monetary terms. Research evidence suggests that this can be the case because ECCD not only leads to reduced costs in other programmes as suggested above, but can also: increase productivity in later life for those who have participated, help free parents and siblings to earn and learn, enhance social participation, and help to reduce economic and social inequalities (see "Benefits" card). In Brazil, the PROAPE programme paid for itself in terms of the reduction of repetition and associated costs in primary school. The High/Scope Perry Preschool longitudinal study, comparing children who participated in a quality preschool programme with children who had not, has quantified the returns to the preschool programme as US$7.16 for every US$1.00 invested.
2. Low costs should not be sought for their own sake. This is an important conclusion from the previous point. If a per child cost of, let us say, $10 produces few or no effects, it is obviously not a good investment, no matter how affordable that level of expenditure might be. But if a cost of $150 per child produces a very great effect it may be an excellent investment for a government, even though it appears to be relatively high cost.
3. The level of expenditure is not directly related to quality. While there may be a correlation between cost and quality, simply putting a lot of money into a programme will not ensure desired outcomes. On the other hand, if the level of investment is too low then there is a likelihood that the programme will have little or no value.
These include:
In addition, governments can seek joint arrangements for covering costs -- with communities, families, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations. Such sharing can make a programme possible, but if not instituted carefully, it can be overdone, especially with respect to cost recovery schemes that demand too much of the poor and therefore make their participation impossible.
1. The returns justify greater investment. This point has been made above.
2. Budget percentages are low. For instance, the percentage of the educational budget of Jamaica that is allocated to early childhood programmes is about 2% whereas preschool-aged children represent almost 20% of the total number of children enrolled in various programmes for which the education sector is responsible.
3. Governments must recognize their role and responsibility for attention to children. This is so because times are changing and many of the arrangements for caring for children that existed in the past do not now exist, negatively affecting the growth and development of young children which, in turn, causes problems in school and society for these children later on. A social expenditure could help to remedy these growing problems. Accordingly, the idea that the family is exclusively responsible for children, a concept promoted primarily in the West, needs to be turned around, recapturing the principle that "it takes a village to raise a child", with the government acting as a support to the village. This cannot be done without a willingness to give due priority to ECCD and to accept and absorb the costs implied.
For more information on how to support Early Childhood Care and Development in your nation or region, contact:
The Consultative Group on ECCD Secretariat,
6 The Lope, Haydenville, MA 01039.
Phone: (413) 268-7272 Fax: (413) 268-7279
Email: Info@ecdgroup.com Internet: www.ecdgroup.com
back to Children's House | back to Children's House ECCD page